Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[Guest]

Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?

Recall Appleby's journal after witnessing the papyrus first hand:

Likewise where the Idolatrous Priest “Elkenah” attempted to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice to their Idol gods, in Egypt (as represented by the Altar etc. before referred to). But was delivered by the interposition of Almighty power, representing the Dove over the Altar, where Abraham lies Bound, which broke the cords by which he was bound, tore down the Altar, and killed the Priest.

Appleby positively confirms that the attempted sacrifice happened "IN" Egypt, not up north where John Gee's has pitched his tent in search of Olishem! Time to come home, John. There is no such thing as Olishem! Smith made it up and got caught in his own geographical snare.

Appleby was a key eyewitness who met with Smith and took meticulous notes for his personal journal. This is definitely a discrepancy for the record book, one that I had not previously comprehended. I need to congratulate myself. I need to keep talking, because the more I talk the more I dig up!



Philo, where the hell are you? You working on your Book of Abraham stuff? I certainly hope so. It's so much more fun doing it from this angle.

:biggrin:

[_Shulem]

In the spirit of "Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt", it's time to correct Joseph Smith's mistakes:

Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea Egypt, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.

Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Kemet Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem Nile river.

[_Shulem]

I promised earlier not to discuss Facsmile No. 3 in this thread but will have to renege somewhat because it's necessary to make some comparisons when discussing Smith's Explanations for Facsimile No. 1 and his entire case for the Book of Abraham. Mormon apologists are kicking and screaming and try to find any kind of parallel or likeness in order to keep Smith's interpretations alive on their apologetic operating table. But the body on the table is already dead. It was dead when they first got it!

Take the knife for example; I've shown that when we take the knife away there is no human sacrifice for Facsimile No. 1 and the whole thing is Smith's imaginative thinking of creating a story about the Egyptians. It's not based on real history and it's a not a genuine interpretation of that vignette that is flanked by funerary spells that honor the true meaning of the vignette and the gods therein.

So, let's take away the knife; shall we? There is no knife. There never was! The only knife that exists for Facsimile No. 1 is the knife that Smith invented. It's the product of his own mind. The vignette for Facsimile No. 1 was near the beginning of the so-called Abrahamic roll and even the text of the Book of Abraham will verify this in that it asks the readers to refer to the illustration of the so-called sacrifice scene represented at the commencement of the record. The vignette on this roll of Abraham was followed by a long stretch of funerary writings until finally arriving at the vignette for Facsimile No. 3. This *IS* the Book of Abraham by which Smith translated and he processed his work through these illustrations and hieroglyphic characters. We know that Smith glued whole portions of them to special paper backing, some of which includes the Plan of the House of the Lord in Kirtland ; we can examine both sides fully at the Joseph Smith Papers.

So let's get rid of the knife once and for all, shall we?

A) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither is there a king's name in Facsmile No. 3. Period! That's final!

B) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither is there a Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand in Facsimile No. 3. Period. That's final!

C) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither does the writing above Hor in Facsimile No. 3 spell the name Shulem. Period! That's final!

There was no human sacrifice scene on Smith's papyrus, period.

[_Shulem]

Next up, let's get rid of the head of the priest, shall we?

First and foremost: You don't put a white man's head on top of a black man's body, period. That's a big no-no. It's a gaffe of colossal proportion that makes a complete mess of the whole thing. What was Smith thinking? That's supposed to be inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Please spare me the rhetoric of Smith's so-called revelations. Don't insult my intelligence! He would have been better off copying the head of Fig. 6 Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and duplicating that for the missing head that was restored to Facsimile No. 1, signifying he *IS* a black person. There's just no excuse for what they did. None!

Second, you don't put a human head atop Anubis! That would be like putting a goat's head atop the figure of Christ hanging on the cross. It doesn't match. It's wrong. So, get rid of the priest's head! Lop it off and put the right head in place.

Third, the headdress was not restored and the remnants that remained were completely ignored in restoring the lost head. Hence, it's not a restoration but a fanciful forgery from the mind of Smith.

Now that we got rid of the knife and the head of the priest the Sacrifice Scene disappears into oblivion. It's time to get rid of other elements of Smith's fantasized story . . . .

[_Shulem]

in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.

Blood, what blood? There's no blood in the title of Pharaoh. There isn't a single nonMormon Egyptologist that will back that statement as a genuine interpretation of Egyptian terms. Only the Mormons and their Apostate-Egyptologists defend Smith's bogus translation of Pharaoh.

The title of Pharaoh wasn't used in Abraham's time but is an anachronism. When were the mighty kings of the 11th or 12th Dynasty ever called "Pharoah"? Where on the Abydos and Turin king's lists is the title Pharaoh mentioned for kings who lived in Abraham's time? You won't find that anymore than you will a king's name in Facsimile No. 3!

I'm afraid that Smith had been reading a little too much in the Bible and ever perusing the Adam Clarke Commentary when he was caught red-handed naming the king of Egypt in Abraham's time as a bloody Pharaoh.

Nobody believes this nonsense except for the Mormons. Smith was wrong about Pharaoh just as he was wrong about the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 and and in identifying the goddess Isis as a man. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the Mormons don't care about truth. They care about their fantasy derived from their testimony which they claim comes from the Holy Ghost which is THAT SAME SPIRIT that fooled Smith with his bogus translations of the so-called Book of Abraham.

[Guest]

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham

Smith's chronology is inconsistent with actual world history proven by king's lists and other forms of dating. Smith's so-called 7,000 years of the earths economy (see D&C 77) does not match the historical record. Smith's Adam would be about 4,000 BC and Noah and Abraham long after that. But we know that according to Egyptology and science that early Dynastic Egypt (1st & 2nd Dynasties) occurred long before NOAH AND THE FLOOD! Egypt was not founded or established by descendants of Ham. Dynastic Egypt was thriving and existing long before the so-called flood had occurred according to the Hebrew calendar and Smith's D&C revelations about the age of human life on earth. Predynastic Egypt is ancient compared to Noah and the flood! The Egyptian civilization was thriving on the Nile long before the myth of Noah was invented. So much for the Book of Abraham and Ham's daughter because she did not discover Egypt. That is simply one of Smith's tales. A whale of a tale!

QUESTIONS FOR JOHN GEE:

1. Which Middle Kingdom king do you think would have been most likely to have granted an Asiatic such as Abraham to sit on his throne and teach his court principles of astronomy garnered from shepherds who kept records up north?

2. How do you explain Egypt's founding by a daughter of biblical Ham when both Predynastic and Dynastic Egypt preceded the biblical record for hundreds and thousands of years?

[_Shulem]

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

What kind of nonsense is Smith making up? This is the most asinine thing I've ever read about Egyptian chronology and the Making of Egypt. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! That statement in the Book of Abraham is utterly false and can be dismissed outright as an ignorant 19th century ouija board reading. It makes me angry that professionals such as John Gee can stand by this nonsense and tell others that the Book of Abraham is historic and genuine. It makes me angry that John Gee is such a traitor and a deceiver. I simply want to yell at him and call him a liar to his face. But what good would that do? The poor man must be drowning in his own misery because he knows better.

John Gee, do you really believe that the first ruler of Egypt was the grandson of Ham? Are you willing to dismiss Smith's D&C 77 and the biblical chronology of when Noah supposedly lived so that Ham's kid can rule Predynastic Egypt? How about you write a paper on that and submit it to your colleagues? Better yet, let me review it first!

Folks, it's not possible that Smith's statement above bears any truth to Egyptian history and is a total fabrication. DO NOT believe it. There are so many problems and contradictions in trying to justify it that it simply boggles the mind.

I know that the story of the Book of Abraham is not true. I know it with every fiber of my being and with all my heart and mind. I so testify that what Joseph Smith wrote about ancient Egypt are complete fabrications and is total fiction. I invite John Gee to prove otherwise.

Kerry Muhlestein?? He probably doesn't know the first thing about the intricacies of Predynastic Egypt and very little about the first Dynasty. Muhlestein is a joke. He should not be an Egyptologist and should never be allowed to dig there again. Ever!

[_Shulem]

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days

Smith acts like he understood the Making of Egypt and its historical beginnings. But Smith is selling snake oil and fantasizing. Little doubt had the conman continued to live he would have written the Book of Joseph and more Book of Abraham installments for the Times and Seasons. Smith had more material in his possession ready to use but his work was cut short. Let's review some of this historical material that came from the mind of Joseph Smith which was kept by the presiding brethren and taken west and secured in the First Presidency vault for protection.


Valuable Discovery of
hiden reccords that have
been obtained from the ancient
buring place of the Egyptians
Joseph Smith Jr.

Katamin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas -[Pharaoh King]-
of Egypt, ✦✦✦ who <​began to​> reigned in the year of the
world 2962.

Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her
father, and died when she was 28 years old, which was
the year 3020.

Please note that so-called Pharaoh Onitas above is also categorized in the Grammar and Alphabet "coming down in lineage by royal descent, in a line by onitas one of the royal families of the Kings of Egypt".

Directly after that, the Grammar contains a bit from the Book of Abraham and tells how "The land of Egypt which was first discovered by a woman while underwater, and afterwards settled by her Sons she being a daughter of Ham".

All of this, of course, is Smith's fiction of what he wants his followers to believe concerning the origins of ancient Egypt. Smith gets to decide what happened and who was involved. Smith is clearly on the hook for writing pure fiction concerning Egypt's making. Historic details provided by Smith cannot be substantiated by Egyptology. It's NOT in the dirt! It it's not in the sand! It's all bogus:

1. King Onitas reigns in year 2962
2. Princess Katumin died at age 28 in year 3020

The above is utter nonsense concocted out of the creative head of Joseph Smith. It is NOT true. What a pity that Smith didn't publish it and later Woodruff would have canonized it. Regardless, it's still Smith's sacred work and was kept preserved for that purpose! It was not discarded as a thing of nought although apologists today trample on it like antiMormons trample on the Book of Mormon. How ironic!

[Guest]

It's interesting to note that the bit about king Onitis and princess Katumin mentioned above was simply more of the same kind of stuff (plenty of it) that we see in the making of the Book of Mormon. Lots of royal names, ages, and dates. Frankly, I don't believe the Book of Mormon anymore than I do the bit about Onitas and Katumin! It's pure fiction!

It seems Mormons today are grappling on what do with historical content such as the garden of Eden and how long man has been on the earth compared to the chronological data and the calendar of the Bible. Even the Mormon temple ceremony states that those things about Adam and Eve are figurative so many Mormons can leave it at that and don't have to take it literal. But Joseph Smith took Adam and Eve and Bible stories quite literally. Smith was a literalist unless he said otherwise and then he would point out the symbolism or what it represented. Smith definitely believed in the Bible calendar of 4,000 years from Adam to Christ and D&C 77 punctuates that belief.

Now, for a matter of pure entertainment, let's confirm that Smith took the Bible literally, the 4,000 years between Adam and Christ, the long lifespan of Adam, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the Making of Egypt outright dismisses what modern Egyptology has positively confirmed about Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. In other words, Mormonsism is an enemy to Egyptology just as John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein have become APOSTATE Egyptologists! They must recant or be defrocked!

Now consider the following REVELATIONS, straight from the loony head of Joseph Smith who confirms the 1,656 years of the early patriarchs prior to the flood and the ridiculous long life spans of the early patriarchs:

Adam age 130 begat Seth (Moses 6:10)
Seth age 69 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:42)
Seth age 105 begat Enos (Moses 6:13)
Enos age 90 begat Cainan (Moses 6:17)
Cainan age 40 called by God in the wilderness (D&C 107:45)
Enos age 134 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:44)
Cainan age 70 begat Mahalaleel (Moses 6:19)
Cainan age 87 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:45)
Mahalaleel age 65 begat Jared (Moses 6:20)
Jared age 162 begat Enoch (Moses 6:21)
Enoch age 25 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:48)
Jared age 200 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:47)
Enoch age 65 begat Methuselah (Moses 6:25)
Enoch age 65 was blessed by Adam (D&C 107:48)
Methuselah age 100 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:50)
Methuselah age 187 begat Lamech (Moses 8:5)
Mahalaleel age 496 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:46)
Lamech age 32 was ordained by Seth (D&C 107:51)
Adam died at age 930 (Moses 6:12)
Seth died at age 912 (Moses 6:14,16)
Enoch age 430 was translated (D&C 107:49)
Lamech age 182 begat Noah (Moses 8:8)
Noah age 10 was ordained by Methuselah (D&C 107:52)
Enos died at age 905 (Moses 6:18)
Cainan died at age 910 (Moses 6:19)
Mahalaleel died at age 895 (Moses 6:20)
Jared died at age 962 (Moses 6:21)
Noah age 450 begat Japheth (Moses 8:12)
Noah age 492 begat Shem (Moses 8:12)
Lamech died at age 777 (Moses 8:11)
Noah age 500 begat Ham (Moses 8:12)
Methuselah died at age 969 (Moses 8:7)

1. Noah & wife
2. Ham & Egyptus
3. Grandson of Noah discovers the land of Egypt underwater and becomes the first king.



What do you say about that, John Gee?

[_Shulem]

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

"imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations"

If this were true we would find geological evidence of it in the DIRT and SAND of ancient Egypt. The Egyptians did not record the myth of Adam's long reign or Noah floating away on an ark. The Egyptians have no myth of a worldwide flood in which all animals were taken on Noah's ark in a two by two fashion in order to be saved from a flood. These historical myths are not found anywhere in the sand of Egypt. It's not a matter of Egyptian record. Nor is it a matter of imitating a priesthood order of a man who was cast out of a garden and lived over 900 years! The Egyptian priesthood is not based on a theme imagined by Joseph Smith. Not at all. The Egyptian priesthood comes from Egypt's gods. It comes from Re, the Sungod, and the primordial gods who brought all things into existence and caused the Nile to flow.